Equal Pay

Jo Swinson: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to the answer of 18 March 2011, Official Report, column 695W, on equal pay, what the results of the most recent equal pay audit of employees of the House of Commons Service are.

John Thurso: A draft equal pay audit report is complete and the House will be consulting the trade unions on the findings during May. It is expected that a final version of the report, including a summary version for wider distribution will be available in June.

Ofcom

Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with Ofcom on the estimated opportunity cost of use of the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz spectrum; and what estimate he has made of the level set for administered incentive pricing of that spectrum.

Edward Vaizey: Ministers have not had any recent discussion with Ofcom on the opportunity cost of the use of the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz spectrum. The current level of Administered Incentive Pricing for the 900 MHz spectrum is £25 million per annum and for the 1800 MHz spectrum is £40 million per annum. In December 2010 I directed Ofcom to revise the annual licence fees applying to the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz spectrum after completion of the auction of the 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz spectrum, so that they reflect the full market value of the spectrum, having particular regard to the sums bid for licences in the auction. I have made no estimate as to what the level of those future annual licence fees might be.

Peat

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
	(1)  if she will introduce mandatory targets for the gardening and horticulture industry to phase out the use of peat-based composts;
	(2)  if she will introduce a levy on retail peat-based composts.

Richard Benyon: A public consultation on future policy to further reduce and eventually phase out the horticultural use of peat in England closed on 11 March. The consultation proposed that a voluntary, partnership approach is followed to deliver phase out targets, including for the amateur gardener market and professional horticulture, and sets out the rationale for doing so. Consultation responses are now being analysed, and will inform the development of a future policy framework.

Water: South East

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department plans to take to ensure the provision of a sufficient supply of water to meet the needs of people living in London and the South East in the next 10 years.

Richard Benyon: All water companies in England and Wales are required to maintain 25-year Water Resources Management Plans which describe how each company aims to secure a sustainable demand-supply balance over the period. Water companies follow a ‘twin track’ approach to managing supplies, considering both demand management actions and the need for new or enhanced supply to ensure they can deliver secure and sustainable supplies of water to their customers. The current plans cover the period 2010 to 2035.

Car Sharing

Caroline Dinenage: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had on the promotion of car sharing schemes.

Norman Baker: In October I held a roundtable discussion with car sharing operators to discuss how the Department for Transport and the industry could further the uptake of car sharing across England. In January, the Department published the ‘Creating Growth: Cutting Carbon’ White Paper, which made clear the Government's commitment to sustainable travel, including car sharing. Departmental officials continue to work with local authorities and the car sharing industry to promote car sharing and support operators.

Invalid Vehicles

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with reference to his Department's document, Carriage of Mobility Scooters on Public Transport: Feasibility Study, 2006, when he plans to publish his Department's guidance on the dimensions and weight of mobility scooters suitable for use on public transport; whether he has had discussions with the train operating companies serving the Brighton and Hove area on the compatibility of their policies on the carriage of four wheel mobility scooters with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Baker: We are currently in discussion with representatives of transport operators (including the Association of Train Operating Companies), manufacturers and user groups, and will publish guidance on scooters on public transport as soon as possible. Any decision made on scooters being carried on public transport will aim to strike a balance between the needs of a user to maintain independence and the operating constraints of the industry.
	Information on existing arrangements, in the meantime, is available through individual operators, whose decisions are based on their own risk assessments.

Claims: Accidents

Andy Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to Annex A of the impact assessment of the Cumulative Jackson Proposals, how many and what proportion of the road traffic accident cases in the data set (a) predated and (b) postdated the road traffic accident claims process; and if he will make a statement.

Jonathan Djanogly: The dataset analysed does not include the date at which the claim was settled, therefore it is not possible to identify those cases which pre or post dated the introduction of the road traffic accident claims process.

Claims: Personal Injury

Andy Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the potential effects on non-personal injury litigants of the removal of after the event insurance recoverability in the absence of a qualified one-way costs shifting alternative as proposed for personal injury claims; and if he will make a statement.

Jonathan Djanogly: “Reforming Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales—Implementation of Lord Justice Jackson's Recommendations: The Government Response” was published on 29 March 2011. An updated impact assessment was published alongside the response.

Courts: Conditional Fee Agreements

Andy Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  how many cases brought on appeal to (a) a circuit judge in the county court, (b) the High Court, (c) the Court of Appeal and (d) the House of Lords and Supreme Court were supported by (i) a conditional fee agreement and (ii) after the event insurance in each of the last three years;
	(2)  how many personal injury claims were (a) issued and (b) tried by each county court currently scheduled for closure in each of the last three years;
	(3)  how many and what proportion of claims processed through the Road Traffic Accident Claims portal were funded by (a) before the event insurance, (b) conditional fee agreements and (c) other forms of funding in the latest period for which figures are available;
	(4)  how many claims proceeding through the Road Traffic Accident Claims portal have been concluded at stage 3 in each of the last three years; and how many and what proportion of claims were awaiting disposal at stage 3 on the latest date for which figures are available.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice holds statistical information in relation to the numbers of claims for an unspecified amount of money that were (a) issued and (b) tried by each county court that is currently scheduled for closure.
	The following table shows these figures for each year between 2008 and 2010.
	
		
			 Number of claims for unspecified amounts of money which were issued and tried  (1)   by county courts currently scheduled for closure; 2008-10 
			  Claims issued Claims tried  (2, 3) 
			  2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 
			 Aberdare 108 117 111 14 10 22 
			 Ashford 161 205 206 37 30 28 
			 Bishop Auckland 68 52 60 5 6 5 
			 Burton-on-Trent 217 208 163 13 13 6 
			 Cheltenham 346 375 417 18 7 11 
			 Chepstow 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Chorley 394 429 475 0 0 1 
			 Consett 31 41 49 5 5 5 
			 Dewsbury 251 478 420 62 89 90 
		
	
	
		
			 Epsom 165 214 234 27 45 46 
			 Evesham 41 49 71 8 8 1 
			 Goole 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Grantham 154 152 168 0 1 3 
			 Gravesend 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Harlow 399 301 255 36 29 31 
			 Haywards Heath 97 99 96 16 18 12 
			 Hitchin 161 192 173 14 8 10 
			 Huntingdon 73 60 36 0 3 1 
			 Ilford 476 935 586 96 81 56 
			 Keighley 106 109 202 18 19 21 
			 Kidderminster 161 157 120 20 17 7 
			 Lowestoft 101 146 109 8 9 4 
			 Ludlow 13 20 11 0 1 4 
			 Melton Mowbray 31 34 46 1 2 1 
			 Newark 37 2 1 1 1 1 
			 Newbury 79 100 67 1 0 2 
			 Northwich 128 162 234 9 12 25 
			 Oswestry 54 64 48 6 3 0 
			 Penrith 45 62 38 1 0 0 
			 Penzance 54 57 57 11 7 10 
			 Pontefract 445 534 622 43 22 38 
			 Pontypool 100 121 94 4 18 13 
			 Poole 259 280 218 31 42 29 
			 Rawtenstall 2,513 1,671 1,281 2 0 0 
			 Redditch 109 133 124 24 23 34 
			 Rhyl 108 230 174 30 29 27 
			 Rugby 104 91 108 14 5 0 
			 Runcorn 73 93 58 9 19 12 
			 Satford 3,327 4,185 5,355 125 86 75 
			 Shrewsbury 187 175 197 28 14 19 
			 Skegness 0 0 3 0 0 0 
			 Southport 917 1,199 929 58 72 74 
			 Stourbridge 172 221 132 23 16 2 
			 Stratford 32 35 41 6 5 2 
			 Tamworth 128 146 127 12 1 4 
			 Trowbridge 221 247 231 23 12 22 
			 Wellingborough 59 72 56 3 4 1 
			 Whitehaven 89 103 88 8 18 14 
			 Worksop 1,943 637 3 4 6 1 
			 Total 14,737 14,993 14,294 876 818 770 
			 (1) The courts which “own” the cases at the trial stage. These may not be the same courts as where the trials are actually located. (2) Includes both claims which involve trials and small claim hearings. (3) For cases with more than one trial/small claim hearing, only the last trial/small claim hearing is counted. Source: Ministry of Justice 
		
	
	The Road Traffic Accident protocol involving the claims portal was implemented in April 2010. The Ministry of Justice does not hold figures centrally which specifically relate to personal injury claims or trials, or to the funding arrangements for personal injury claimants whether by conditional fee agreements or after the event insurance. Personal injury cases including those at stage 3 of the Road Traffic Accident protocol are logged onto the administrative computer systems. However these cannot be accurately distinguished from other types of cases brought for either an unspecified amount of money (where not under the protocol) or under Part 8 (where under the protocol). While appeals are recorded on IT systems, information about how they are supported whether by conditional fee agreements or after the event insurance is not held electronically.

Damages: Employers’ Liability

Andy Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to Annex A of the impact assessment of the Cumulative Jackson Proposals, for what reason (a) the chart at paragraph 1.23 shows that 75 per cent. of general damages in employer liability cases are below £10,000 and 10 per cent. of such cases are between £10,000 and £20,000 and (b) the results table in Annex A shows that current average general damages in such cases is £10,436.

Jonathan Djanogly: The figures provided in the results table in Annex A of the impact assessment are average figures from the dataset analysed, which contained 5,041 Employer Liability cases (accident only). General damages in the dataset ranged from £1,000 to £100,000, with the mean average general damages calculated at £10,436.
	This average does not provide any detail of the distribution of these general damages; the chart at paragraph 1.23 provides further detail. There are some cases with general damages significantly above £10,000 that brings up the average, despite accounting for a small proportion of the dataset.

Damages: Employers’ Liability

Andy Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  with reference to the results table in Annex A of the impact assessment of the Cumulative Jackson Proposals, what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the analysed figures for current average general damages and new average general damages represent damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity only and do not represent total damages or include other heads of damage; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  with reference to paragraph 1.8 of Annex A of the impact assessment of the Cumulative Jackson Proposals, in how many of the cases comprising the dataset the damages settlements (a) were global and (b) included damages other than pain, suffering and loss of amenity; how many such cases there were in each case category of (i) employer liability, (ii) public liability and (iii) road traffic accident; and if he will make a statement.

Jonathan Djanogly: The dataset analysed includes figures for general damages, and special damages where applicable. However, for some low value claims, the settlements may be global and so there may be negligible special damages recorded.
	The dataset received contained a split between general and special damages in all cases, and we cannot tell from the dataset whether a global settlement was made or not. Similarly, we do not hold the detail of those damages which specifically relate to pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The fact that general damages may not always equate to pain, suffering and loss of amenity is noted in paragraph 1.18, point vi).

Armed Forces: Recruitment

Elfyn Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  how much his Department budgeted for recruitment in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09 and (c) 2009-10; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  how much his Department spent on marketing for recruitment purposes in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09 and (c) 2009-10; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Robathan: The Ministry of Defence does not have a specific budget for recruitment. Budgets are delegated to Top Level Budget holders who set an estimate for recruitment spend at the beginning of each financial year.
	The following table, however, shows Ministry of Defence expenditure on advertising and marketing for recruitment purposes for the last two years as set out in our Annual Report and Accounts. This is predominantly on a national basis but may not include significant amounts of regional spend. The different ways in which each of the services carry out their activities means that there are variations in how their data is consolidated.
	Consolidated data on marketing spend are not available prior to 2008-09.
	
		
			  £ million 
			 2008-09 62.4 
			 2009-10 29.5

Departmental Procurement

Bob Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which contracts his Department has renegotiated since May 2010; and what estimate he has made of the savings to his Department arising from each such contract renegotiation.

Nick Harvey: holding answer 9 May 2011
	Progress on the renegotiation of contracts relating to strategic defence and security review decisions has meant that from our earlier start point of 130, we are now examining in excess of 300 contracts; this is expected to increase to some 500 contracts in due course. We expect the process of renegotiating these contracts to continue into 2012.
	Initial focus has been on the contracts that will deliver the highest savings in the early years of the comprehensive spending review period. The Ministry of Defence has already renegotiated around 30 contracts relating to the Nimrod and Harrier programmes. However, I am withholding details of each specific negotiation as its disclosure would prejudice commercial interests.

Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  how much funding his Department has allocated under each budget heading to the Independent Monitoring Board for the Military Corrective Training Centre in 2011-12;
	(2)  when the Independent Monitoring Board for the Military Corrective Training Centre was established;
	(3)  how many staff of his Department are working for the Independent Monitoring Board for the Military Corrective Training Centre; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts;
	(4)  budget for the Independent Monitoring Board for the Military Corrective Training Centre was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how much was spent on the Board under each cost category in that period.

Andrew Robathan: The Independent Monitoring Board (formerly the Independent Board of Visitors), for the Military Corrective Training Centre Colchester, was established in 1980. The board inspect the centre at least twice a year and report their findings to Ministers. They inspect, among other things, the condition of the premises and the treatment, health and welfare of detainees. The arrangements are very similar to those in place for civilian detention facilities in the UK.
	The Ministry of Defence provides secretariat and administrative support for the Independent Monitoring Board. The board receives no direct funding from the Ministry of Defence, though travel expenses incurred by and recruitment costs of its members are funded by the Military Corrective Training Centre. Travel expenses amount to less than £3,000 per annum. Recruitment costs occur as and when vacancies arise and in 2010-11 amounted to some £2,500.

Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for the future level of funding for the National Museum of the Royal Navy.

Andrew Robathan: The National Museum of the Royal Navy (NMRN) was established in April 2009 and consists of the Royal Naval Museum, and the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Royal Marines Museum and Royal Navy Submarine Museum, the latter three are in the process of integrating into the NMRN. The aims of the NMRN are to capture the enduring spirit of the naval service, to provide a clear heritage strategy for the Naval Service and raise awareness of the vital contribution the Naval Service has made to national security and the nation's prosperity in the past and in the future.
	The currently anticipated future funding for the body for the spending review period is as follows:
	
		
			  £ 
			 2011-12 3,454,843 
			 2012-13 3,809,825 
			 2013-14 3,809,365 
			 2014-15 3,235,178

Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for future funding of the National Army Museum.

Andrew Robathan: The National Army Museum was incorporated by Royal Charter on 8 April 1960. Its objectives are to educate and inform the public and members of the Army about the history and traditions of the British Army in particular, but not exclusively, by collecting conserving, preserving, managing, exhibiting and storing documents, pictorial records, artefacts and printed materials in collection.
	On current plans, funding for the National Army Museum is as follows:
	
		
			  £ million 
			 2011-12 5.6 
			 2012-13 5.7 
			 2013-14 5.9 
			 2014-15 6.0

Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  how much funding his Department provided to the Nuclear Research Advisory Council in the last 12 months; and under what budget headings such funding was spent;
	(2)  what plans his Department has for future funding of the Nuclear Research Advisory Council;
	(3)  what the (a) purpose and (b) function is of the Nuclear Research Advisory Council;
	(4)  when the Nuclear Research Advisory Council was established;
	(5)  how many staff of his Department are employed by the Nuclear Research Advisory Council; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts.

Andrew Robathan: The Nuclear Research Advisory Council (NRAC) is an advisory non-departmental public body and, as such, does not incur expenditure on its own account. Expenditure on fees and reimbursement of travel and subsistence for the financial year 2010-11 have not yet been finalised but is estimated to be some £49,000.
	As an advisory non-departmental public body, the NRAC does not incur expenditure on its own account. Future expenditure will be incurred against any agreed programme of specific scientific advice.
	The NRAC's purpose and function is to advise Chief Scientific Advisor on the technical direction and adequacy of the UK's nuclear warhead research and capability maintenance programme, including experiments and other facilities and techniques necessary to design, manufacture, sustain and operate a UK nuclear weapon capability in the absence of underground testing. The Council also examines the UK's programme of international collaboration.
	The NRAC was established in 1996.
	The NRAC does not employ staff on its own account. The Ministry of Defence provides the support functions for the body.

Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  when the Advisory Group on Military Medicine was established;
	(2)  what the purpose and function is of the Advisory Group on Military Medicine;
	(3)  what plans he has for future levels of spending on the Advisory Group on Military Medicine;
	(4)  what the budget is for the Advisory Group on Military Medicine in each category of spending in each year of the comprehensive spending review period;
	(5)  how many staff of his Department work for the Advisory Group on Military Medicine; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts.

Andrew Robathan: The Advisory Group on Military Medicine (AGOMM) was approved by the Cabinet Office as a non-departmental public body in August 2008, continuing the work previously undertaken by the Advisory Group on Medical Countermeasures (AGMC). Its purpose is to provide: independent statements on the safety, efficacy and quality of medicines and medical devices that may be deployed and employed by the armed forces; specific advice on medical products that are unlicensed or Ministry of Defence intends to use for a purpose other than its licensed use; peer review research, development and acquisition programmes that will deliver future operational medical capability; provide independent advice on policy, doctrine, training and practice issues.
	As an advisory non-departmental public body it will advise Ministers, but not employ staff or incur expenditure on its own account. The Surgeon General will be a member of the Executive Committee and will provide the secretariat functions for the committee from existing full time HQ Surgeon General Staff. In addition, the committee may draw on the pool of expertise found within the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments for specific tasks.
	The total cost to the Department for work undertaken by AGOMM during the financial year 2010-11 was £5,063.73. This was broken down as follows: daily rate staff costs of £2,562.00, travel and subsistence costs of £2,501.73. It should be noted that AGOMM is scheduled to meet at least twice a year, but only met once in 2010-11. Work is currently under way to finalise the tasking arrangements for the financial year 2011-12. If AGOMM does meet twice in 2011-12 then an approximate doubling of expenditure shown for 2010-11 is expected.

Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  when the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees was established;
	(2)  what the budget was for the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees in each category of spending in 2010-11;
	(3)  what plans he has for future levels of spending on the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees;
	(4)  what the purpose and function is of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees;
	(5)  how many staff of his Department work for the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts.

Andrew Robathan: 13 regional Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees (VAPCs) were established in 2010 as a 12 month pilot to build on the role of the War Pensions Committees. Their purpose is to provide advice, assistance and support to the service and ex-service community on pensions and compensation. They also provide advice and raise awareness to other public bodies and the local communities on the needs of veterans. The Ministry of Defence provides the secretariat functions for the VAPCs, this equates to 1.25 permanent staff. The annual budget for 2011-12 is £41,000 and the main items of expenditure are travel and subsistence. Members are volunteers and receive out of pocket expenses.

Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  when the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons was established;
	(2)  what the purpose and function is of the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons;
	(3)  what the budget contribution from his Department was for the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons under each budget heading in 2010-11;
	(4)  what plans he has for future levels of funding for the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons;
	(5)  how many staff of his Department work for the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts. [Official Report, 20 July 2011, Vol. 531, c. 10MC.]

Andrew Robathan: The Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) was approved as a non-departmental public body in June 2009 and will be established soon. It is expected to be established later this year and it will continue the work previously undertaken by the Defence Science Advisory Council Subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (DOMILL).
	SACMILL’s purpose will be to provide: advice on the biophysical, biomechanical, pathological and clinical aspects of generic classes of Less Lethal Weapons; independent statements on the medical implications of use of specific Less Lethal Weapons; advice on the risk of injury from specific Less Lethal Weapons systems striking specific areas of the body in a format that will assist those responsible for developing policy; and, separately, guidance to users, as well as operational users themselves in making tactical decisions.
	As an advisory non-departmental public body it will advise Ministers, but not employ staff or incur expenditure on its own account. The Surgeon General will be a member of the Executive Committee and will provide the secretariat functions for the committee from existing full-time HQ Surgeon General Staff. In addition, the committee may draw on the pool of expertise found within the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments for specific tasks.
	The total cost to the Department for DOMILL legacy work undertaken during the financial year 2010-11 was £39,355.56, principally for travel and subsistence costs. Work is currently under way to finalise the tasking arrangements for the financial year 2011-12; a similar level of expenditure as the previous year is expected.

Departmental Work Experience

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice her Department provides to those wishing to (a) work as an intern, (b) undertake a work experience placement and (c) work as a volunteer in her Department.

Damian Green: The Civil Service Summer Diversity Internship programme aims to provide high calibre undergraduates/graduates with a six to eight week training/work placement within government departments. In its current format it provides opportunities for black and ethnic minority and (lower) socio-economic students. For more information please view:
	www.faststream.gov.uk
	applications open in December for the following summer.
	Opportunities for work experience placements are quite limited but do arise occasionally. These placements are designed to help Year 10 or 11 students become familiar with work in general and are limited to one or two weeks. Students in year 10 or 11 interested in a placement in the Home Office, will need to identify a specific area of interest and contact that area direct. For further information on the various areas within the Home Office please refer to our website at:
	www.homeoffice.gov.uk
	Alternatively, please look at the following website:
	http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/index.aspx
	where further information can be found on other Government Departments and the civil service.
	There is no centrally run scheme for those seeking to volunteer to work at the Home Office. Potential volunteers will need to identify an area of interest and contact that area direct to see if any volunteering opportunities are available.

Entry Clearances: Overseas Students

Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether international students studying higher education courses at further education colleges will be allowed to work for 20-hours a week on the same basis as their university counterparts under the proposed new regulations.

Damian Green: holding answer 9 May 2011
	In summer 2011, we will make the next set of changes to the student immigration system following on from the recent consultation on the route, including changes to the ability for students to work. Students sponsored by publicly-funded further education colleges will be given permission to work of 10-hours per week during term-time, and full-time during vacations. Students studying at privately funded providers of further and higher education, and at English language schools will not be granted permission to work at any time during their studies. This is set out in the document “Student Visas—Statement of Intent and Transitional Measures”, which was published on 31 March 2011. Copies are available in the House Library.

Homicide

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 7 March 2011, Official Report, columns 871-2W, on homicide, what causal factors her Department has identified as underlying the fall in the rate of homicide between 2001-02 and 2009-10.

Nick Herbert: Analysis has not been conducted to identify specific causal factors underlying this reduction. However, trend analysis presented in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin ‘Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2009/10’ shows that there has been no or very little change over this period in the proportion of homicides by particular methods or relationship of the victim to principal suspect.
	Further, the bulletin shows that following a general rise between 1997-98 and 2001-02, the homicide rate in 2009-10 has now returned to a similar level as 1997-98 (at 11.8 per million population).

Illegal Immigrants

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were granted leave to remain after (a) 10 years legal residence and (b) 14 years illegal residence in the UK in each year between 1997 and 2010.

Damian Green: The following table shows the number of people granted leave to remain after making a long residency application for (a) 10 year legal residence and (b) 14 years illegal residence in the UK covering the period 1April 2003 to the 31 December 2010. The figures are separated by the year in which a decision was made.
	The provision to grant indefinite leave to remain (ILR) on the basis of 14 year long term residence, along with that of 10 year long term residence, was introduced into the immigration rules in April 2003. Therefore we are unable to provide data prior to this date.
	
		
			 Number of individuals granted leave to remain 
			  (a) 10 year legal residence (b) 14 year illegal residence Total 
			 2003 (from April) 2,043 952 2,995 
			 2004 2,260 781 3,041 
			 2005 2,581 730 3,311 
			 2006 3,391 799 4,190 
			 2007 2,411 949 3,360 
			 2008 2,148 902 3,050 
			 2009 3,042 2,061 5,103 
			 2010 4,759 1,774 6,533 
			  22,635 8,948 31,583 
			 Note: All figures quoted are internal management information only and are subject to change. This information has not been quality assured under National Statistics protocols.

Immigrants: English Language

Julie Elliott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions she has made for the approval of English language test providers in the period between the withdrawal of the list of approved providers and the publication of a new list.

Damian Green: The new list of English language test providers was published on 6 April. Transitional arrangements have been put in place which will allow customers to use either the new list of providers or the existing list of providers for a specific period.
	For tier 1 and tier 2 of the points based system, the transitional arrangements apply to applications received by the UK Border Agency on or before 17 May 2011. For applications as a spouse or partner the application must be received on or before 17 July 2011. There are no transitional arrangements for tier 4 as the previous providers for tier 4 are all included on the new list along with two additional providers.

Interpreters

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what scale of fees was payable to interpreters by (a) the UK Border Agency and its predecessors and (b) each police force in respect of (i) illegal entry and (ii) criminal matters in each of the last five years; how much was paid for such services in each category in each such year; and what expenses are payable to such interpreters.

Damian Green: UK Border Agency Interpreters are paid as shown in the following table:
	
		
			 UKBA interpreter fees 
			   £ per hour 
			 Weekdays First hour 48 
			  Then (1)16 
			   (2)20 
			 Saturdays First hour 72 
			  Then 26 
			 Sundays/Bank holidays First hour 72 
			  Then 32 
			 (1) Between 08:01 and 18:00 (2) Between 18:01 and 08:00 
		
	
	These fees have remained the same since 2002. UK Border Agency are unable to provide amounts of spend on specific areas of interpreter provision as interpreter events are not recorded in this manner.
	Travel expenses are only paid for interpreters where they are travelling in excess of three hours each way.
	The Home Office does not hold information regarding remuneration and reimbursement of expenses for interpreters working for police forces.

Police

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of police resources is allocated to traffic policing in each police force area; how many dedicated traffic police officers there were in each such area in each year since 2007-08; what recent discussions she has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers on the number of dedicated traffic police officers; and if she will make a statement.

Nick Herbert: Available information relating to police officers whose primary function is listed as traffic in England and Wales from 2007-08 to 2009-10 is given in the following table.
	Information on the proportion of police resources allocated to traffic policing is not available centrally. The Government allocates funding to Police Authorities as a whole and they, in discussion with the chief constable, judge local need and prioritise resources accordingly.
	The Secretary of State has not had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers on this issue because decisions on the deployment of officers to different functions are an operational matter for chief constables to determine.
	
		
			 Police officers FTE  (1)   whose main function is traffic  (2)   2007-08 to   2009-10 
			  2007-06 2006-09 2009-10 
			 Avon and Somerset 160 168 157 
			 Bedfordshire 65 56 57 
			 Cambridgeshire 90 99 101 
			 Cheshire 94 88 90 
			 Cleveland 104 106 115 
			 Cumbria 99 66 86 
			 Derbyshire 109 89 88 
			 Devon and Cornwall 232 236 239 
			 Dorset 78 79 76 
			 Durham 107 104 96 
			 Dyfed-Powys 128 94 64 
			 Essex 219 222 257 
			 Gloucestershire 67 67 65 
			 Greater Manchester 338 315 310 
			 Gwent 57 49 63 
			 Hampshire 214 187 181 
			 Hertfordshire 152 151 139 
			 Humberside 104 97 116 
			 Kent 122 138 138 
			 Lancashire 180 181 171 
		
	
	
		
			 Leicestershire 74 85 86 
			 Lincolnshire 92 66 84 
			 City of London 26 23 30 
			 Merseyside 152 167 164 
			 Metropolitan Police 612 290 297 
			 Norfolk 116 109 102 
			 Northamptonshire 60 63 68 
			 Northumbria 165 164 169 
			 North Wales 90 88 86 
			 North Yorkshire 105 103 99 
			 Nottinghamshire 144 139 47 
			 South Wales 233 165 143 
			 South Yorkshire 144 135 130 
			 Staffordshire 34 30 67 
			 Suffolk 81 72 67 
			 Surrey 98 97 100 
			 Sussex 160 166 159 
			 Thames Valley 250 249 228 
			 Warwickshire 93 14 10 
			 West Mercia 128 119 101 
			 West Midlands 352 351 351 
			 West Yorkshire 283 297 315 
			 Wiltshire 91 85 83 
			 Total 6,299 5,714 5,634 
			 (1) This table contain full-time equivalent figures that have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Because of rounding, there may be an apparent discrepancy between totals and the sums of the constituent items. (2) Staff with multiple responsibi1ities (or designations) are recorded under their primary role or function. The traffic function includes staff who are predominantly employed on motorcycles or in patrol vehicles for the policing of traffic and motorway related duties. The does not Include officers employed in accident investigation, vehicle examination and radar duties.

Police

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the costs of policing the annual party political conferences in (a) 2009-10 and (b) 2010-11; and from which budget these costs were met.

Nick Herbert: The actual cost of policing party political conferences are set out in the following table. These costs were met from the Home Office special grant budget.
	
		
			 Costs of policing the annual party political conferences 
			 Financial year Political party £ million 
			 2009-10 Labour 5.7 
			  Conservative 3.4 
			  Total 9.1 
			    
			 2010-11 Labour 3.3 
			  Conservative 3.5 
			  Liberal Democrat 1.2 
			  Total 8.0

Police

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers (a) were killed on duty and (b) received bravery awards in each police force area in England and Wales in each year since 2005.

Nick Herbert: Available information relates to fatal assaults on police officers by police force area in England and Wales from 2004-05 to 2009-10 and is given in the table (the table indicates where forces did not make a statistical return for assaults).
	The UK Honours System (including awards for merit, service or bravery) is managed by Cabinet Office Honours and Appointments Secretariat and details of awards are published in the London Gazette. The number of police officers receiving such awards is not collected centrally within the police personnel statistics series.
	
		
			 Fatal assaults  (1)   on police officers 2004-05 to 2009-10 
			  2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 
			 Avon and Somerset 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Bedfordshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Cambridgeshire 0 * 0 0 0 0 
			 Cheshire 0 0 0 0 * * 
			 Cleveland 0 * 0 0 0 0 
			 Cumbria 0 0 0 * * 0 
			 Derbyshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Devon and Cornwall 0 * * 0 0 0 
			 Dorset 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Durham 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Dyfed-Powys 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Essex 0 0 * 0 * 0 
			 Gloucestershire 0 0 * 0 0 * 
			 Greater Manchester 0 0 * * 0 * 
			 Gwent 0 0 * 0 0 0 
			 Hampshire * 0 * 0 0 * 
			 Hertfordshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Humberside 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Kent 0 0 * 0 1 0 
			 Lancashire 0 * * 0 0 0 
			 Leicestershire * 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Lincolnshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 London, City of 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Merseyside 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Metropolitan Police * 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Norfolk 0 0 0 0 0 0 
		
	
	
		
			 Northamptonshire 0 0 * 0 0 0 
			 Northumbria 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 North Wales 0 0 0 * 0 0 
			 North Yorkshire 0 0 0 0 * * 
			 Nottinghamshire 0 0 * 0 0 0 
			 South Wales 0 0 * * 0 0 
			 South Yorkshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Staffordshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Suffolk 0 0 * 0 0 0 
			 Surrey 0 0 * 0 0 0 
			 Sussex 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Thames Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Warwickshire 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 West Mercia 0 0 * 0 0 0 
			 West Midlands * 0 0 0 0 0 
			 West Yorkshire 0 1 0 0 0 0 
			 Wiltshire 0 0 * * 0 0 
			 * = Data unavailable/not provided by the police. (1) These data are provisional and have not been validated with forces.

Police: Airports

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of policing each airport was in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement.

Nick Herbert: The cost of uniformed police officers at airports is not held centrally. However, funding for Special Branch officers at ports is provided by the Home Office through Counter Terrorism grants as a contribution to the police costs for specific national security functions. The grants paid to police forces towards the costs of funding their Special Branch officers at ports in the last five financial years were as follows:
	
		
			  £ million 
			 2006-07 71.4 
			 2007-08 72.6 
			 2008-09 77.1 
			 2009-10 77.8 
			 2010-11 76.3 
		
	
	Changes to arrangements for uniformed airport policing were introduced in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (section 79, 80 and Schedule 6) and are being implemented for the 2011-12 financial year. Under the new arrangements, the airport operator, the local police and the relevant police authority should agree the level of policing required at airports.
	The onus is on the airport operator to meet the costs in full where a dedicated policing presence is required.

Police: Corruption

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were brought against police forces by members of the public for (a) malicious prosecution, (b) false imprisonment and (c) assault in each year since 1997; how many such cases were decided in favour of the complainant; and how much compensation was paid in respect of each such case.

Nick Herbert: There are no criminal offences for (a) malicious prosecution, (b) false imprisonment and (c) assault specifically by the police and the Home Office does not hold information relating to civil cases.
	Data on complaints, however, was collected by the Home Office up until April 2004 and is available at:
	http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1704.pdf
	This contains tables on proportions of complaints that were substantiated (Tables 5, 6), and by the type of proceedings which resulted (Table 8). Table 8 breaks down substantiated complaints by reason for complaint.
	Since April 2004 data on complaints has been collected by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and is available at:
	http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/default.aspx
	The IPCC data contains statistics relating to the number of allegations recorded against police officers and the outcomes of completed investigations for unlawful/unnecessary arrest or detention and assault. The IPCC does not hold statistics on malicious prosecution.
	It is entirely at the discretion of the chief constable as to how to respond to any claims for compensation. The Home Office does not therefore collate any figures on this, although individual police forces may hold these data.

Police: Drugs

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those brought into a police station tested positively for Class A drugs in each year since 2007-08; and what proportion of those voluntarily agreed to treatment.

James Brokenshire: The information requested is not collected centrally.

Terrorism: Northern Ireland

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regarding dissident republican terrorism;
	(2)  what recent discussions she has had on the threat to the security of Great Britain from dissident republican terrorists.

Nick Herbert: The Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), takes a keen interest in issues related to Residual Terrorist Groups in Northern Ireland, not least given the increase in the threat level posed by Northern Irish Related Terrorism to Great Britain since September 2010. She is regularly briefed on the threat and has meetings with officials and Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to discuss a range of related matters. Details of these meetings cannot be disclosed.

Vetting

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many and what proportion of record checks processed by the Criminal Records Bureau chief police officers in each police force area had entered comments on otherwise clean reports in each year since 2002.

Nick Herbert: Only the Enhanced level Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) check will involve a check of information held locally by police forces.
	The number and proportion of certificates issued by the CRB for each financial year since 2002-03, where a chief officer of a police force has included information as ‘other relevant information’ and where no other information was included on the certificate can be found in the table as follows. Please note that the following figures represent the number of certificates issued and not the number of applicants as an individual may have been issued with more than one certificate.
	
		
			 Financial year Total certificate volumes Certificates which contained 'other relevant information only’ Proportion of certificates issued with 'other relevant information' only (percentage) 
			 2002-03 1,437,094 4,294 0.30 
			 2003-04 2,284,688 7,156 0.31 
			 2004-05 2,430,937 7,520 0.31 
			 2005-06 2,770,265 10,126 0.37 
			 2006-07 3,277,957 9,407 0.29 
			 2007-08 3,323,334 9,648 0.29 
			 2008-09 3,853,686 11,073 0.29 
			 2009-10 4,299,906 12,833 0.30 
			 2010-11 4,311,820 13,194 0.31

Education: Finance

Nicholas Dakin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to the answer of 26 April 2011, Official Report, column 281W, on education: finance, whether he has made an estimate of the likely cost to (a) schools, (b) colleges and (c) other training providers of administering a discretionary support fund for 16 to 19 learners.

Nick Gibb: We do not anticipate that the cost to schools, colleges and training providers of administering the 16-19 Bursary Fund will be any greater, proportionally, than those incurred in relation to the current discretionary learner support fund. Schools, colleges and training providers are able currently to use up to 5% of their allocation of discretionary funds to meet the costs of administering the scheme; this will continue following the introduction of the 16-19 Bursary Fund. Byway of comparison, the costs of administering the EMA scheme nationally are also around 5% of the total expenditure.

Diplomatic Service

Sajid Javid: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the future of his Department's global diplomatic network.

David Lidington: Our plans for the future of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) network are now being finalised. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), will make a statement to the House later this week. But there will be no strategic shrinkage in our global presence. The FCO network is an essential part of the UK's economic recovery and will continue to play a vital role in maintaining our influence in the world.

Osama bin Laden

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time he was notified of the US military operation against Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad; and whether his Department was involved in any aspects of the planning or execution of the operation.

Alistair Burt: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), was made aware of the US operation against Osama bin Laden soon after the Prime Minister was informed, early on the morning of Monday 2 May 2011. The UK works very closely with the US military and intelligence services but we had no involvement in the planning or execution of this operation.

Osama bin Laden

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he plans to take to prevent any reprisal attack on UK interests overseas following the death of Osama bin Laden.

Alistair Burt: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office constantly reviews the threat of international terrorism to British nationals and UK interests overseas, working closely with the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), security and intelligence agencies and our network of overseas posts. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also contributes to the cross-Government effort to reduce the risk of terrorism. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that al-Qaeda and its affiliates will attempt acts of reprisal.
	The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) has therefore encouraged British nationals to regularly check our travel advice, to monitor the media carefully for local reactions, to be vigilant and exercise caution in public places, and to avoid demonstrations. He has also asked all our embassies and high commissions overseas to review their security and to make sure that vigilance is heightened.

Muscular Dystrophy

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by the NHS East of England Specialised Commissioning Group in recruiting and appointing three neuromuscular care advisors for the region; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Burstow: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on 3 May 2011, Official Report, column 704W.
	Further to that answer, we are advised that the posts will be advertised with a view to suitable candidates commencing the roles by the end of summer 2011.

Local Enterprise Partnerships

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 
	(1)  which organisations were consulted on the decision to select the British Chambers of Commerce to lead a national representative body for local enterprise partnerships;
	(2)  what the aims and objectives are of the new national representative body for local enterprise partnerships; and if he will make a statement.

Bob Neill: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) and the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) on 9 May 2011, Official Report, column 1035W.

Export Controls

John Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills 
	(1)  what mechanisms are in place to ensure the protection of (a) democratic freedoms and (b) human rights when assessing applications for export control licences;
	(2)  what steps he plans to take to ensure that export control licences are not granted in circumstances where the equipment to be sold could be used to (a) suppress democratic expression and (b) abuse human rights.

Mark Prisk: All UK export licence applications are rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the Consolidated European Union (EU) and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. We will not issue any licences if to do so would be inconsistent with the Criteria. Our assessment includes consideration of how an end-user is likely to use the proposed export, the circumstances in which it might be used, and whether it could exacerbate conflict or otherwise contravene the criteria.
	Criterion two relates to ‘the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination’. Having assessed the recipient country's attitude towards relevant principles established by international human rights instruments, we will ‘not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression’.

Foreign Investment in UK

John Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills with reference to the Plan for Growth, what plans he has to provide a bespoke service to key inward investors; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Prisk: The Government are currently developing a new approach to ensure that major investors and exporters, whose decisions and business success will deliver significant benefits to the UK economy, receive a consistent and joined-up service from Government.
	A new cross-governmental strategic relations team, based in UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), under a leadership with extensive private sector experience, will co-ordinate this work, adopting best practice from private sector professional services organisations. More details will be contained in the UKTI Strategy 2011-15 to be published on 10 May.

Foreign Investment in UK

John Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what progress has been made on contracting out the delivery of support for inward investment by UK Trade and Industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Prisk: On 31 March 2011, UKTI awarded a three-year contract (capable of extension to five years) to PA Consulting Services Ltd for delivery of new national inward investment arrangements. PA Consulting will deliver these new arrangements in partnership with the British Chambers of Commerce and OCO Consulting.
	The new arrangements will provide resource to:
	a. co-ordinate and manage inward investment propositions throughout the UK;
	b. support the local elements of delivery of inward investment support, including investor development, in England, excepting London which has its own arrangements.
	This is as set out in the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union:
	http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:36720Q-2010:TEXT:EN:HTML
	A press statement can be found on the UK Trade and Investment website:
	http://www.ukti.gov.uk/pt_pt/uktihome/media/pressRelease/128993.html?null

Social Services: Regulation

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills with reference to paragraph 2.214 of The Plan for Growth, which regulations he has identified as having a disproportionate effect on micro-enterprises in the social care sector.

Mark Prisk: As part of the Growth Review, National Association of Adult Placement Services, the national network for small community service providers, raised the following key regulatory barriers to growth, which they considered to have impacted upon their membership of social care micro-enterprises, disproportionately:
	Food Standards Regulations
	Private Hire Vehicle Licensing
	Criminal Records Bureau Checks
	Employment and Taxation Duties
	Further details of the actions underway to address these barriers are set out in the Plan for Growth see:
	http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ukecon_growth_index.htm

Supply Chain Finance

Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he plans to take to stimulate the use of supply chain finance.

Mark Prisk: This Department is committed to improving the diversity of finance sources available to business. Supply chain finance was identified as a potentially valuable source of finance for some businesses in the business finance green paper Financing a Private Sector Recovery (published July 2010) and the “Government response Financing Business Growth” (published October 2010).
	As set out in our “Plan for Growth”, published alongside the Budget in March 2011, we are working with mid-cap and larger businesses and industry bodies to increase awareness and understanding of how supply chain finance could benefit private sector supply chains.
	In the public sector, Government are assessing current pilot schemes to learn lessons and consider the potential for wider public sector use of supply chain finance.